JANDRUWANDA v University of South Australia

[2003] FMCA 205

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JANDRUWANDA v UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA & ORS [2003] FMCA 205

HUMAN RIGHTS – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Dismissal of claim made under s.46PO of HREOC Act where no complaint made to HREOC in respect of parties seeking to be dismissed.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986, ss.46PO, PE, PH

Applicant: JENNIFER JANDRUWANDA

First Respondent: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent: TAFE

Third Respondent: WORKING WOMEN’S CENTRE

File No: AZ 30 of 2003

Delivered on: 21 May 2003

Delivered at: Adelaide

Hearing date: 21 May 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Applicant in person

Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Solicitors for the Second Respondent:	DJB Watts

ORDERS

1. Proceedings against Second and Third Respondents dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay Second and Third Respondents’ costs and costs of Ms Ross pursuant to Part 21, Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

3. Applicant to pay the costs of Colleen Ross to be assessed pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

4. Second and Third Respondents and Ms Ross certified as being entitled to an advocate pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.15 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

AZ 30 of 2003

JENNIFER JANDRUWANDA

Applicant

And

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

TAFE

Second Respondent

WORKING WOMEN’S CENTRE

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant has brought a claim against both TAFE and the Working Women's Centre.  She had previously brought a claim against a Ms Ross who is, to my understanding, an employee of the Working Women's Centre.  Following my directions, and orders made on 26 February 2003, the applicant provided an amended application.  That amended application no longer included Ms Ross, on whose behalf an application has now been made for costs.

2. The second and third respondents have filed an application to be dismissed from the proceedings on the grounds that they are not properly parties thereto, as they were not persons against whom a complaint was made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.  They argue that section 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 clearly states two criteria for a person to commence proceedings in this court under the three discrimination acts with which the court deals.

3. The first requirement is that a complaint has been terminated by the president under ss.46PE and 46PH of the Act, and the second is that the president has given notice to any person under s.46PH subsection (2) in relation to the termination.  You cannot terminate a complaint unless a complaint is made.  In this particular case the notice of termination only cites the University of South Australia as a respondent.  No complaint was made by the applicant against either the second respondent to these proceedings or the third respondent.

4. I am satisfied there are no grounds upon which the applicant can make an application to this court in relation to these respondents and I dismiss the claim against them. I order that the applicant pay both respondents' costs and the costs of Ms Ross pursuant to Part 21, Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, noting that in view of the number of times this matter has come before the court and the requirements placed upon the respondents, that it would be appropriate for the schedule of costs to include stage 2 as well as stage 1. I would order that it is appropriate for the respondents to employ an advocate pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.15 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

5. For the avoidance of doubt, the order for costs relates not only to the second and third respondents but also to Ms Ross, who was formerly a fourth respondent to these proceedings. 

6. For the further avoidance of doubt these dismissal orders shall apply in respect of the following persons, who are named in the information sheet provided by the applicant:  Russell Sharrock, Linda Dunbar, Kate Stephens, Helen Briggs and Greg Stevens and, in respect of the Working Women's Centre, Colleen Ross. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date: